STATE OF ORISSA Vs. CHOUDHURY METAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the defendants has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1992 and 11.01.1993 respectively, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bolangir in Money Suit No. 96 of 1989, partly decreeing the money claim of the Plaintiff (Respondent herein) and holding the defendants jointly and several liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 97,437.54 paise.

(2.) Plaintiff's case is that being a Manufacturer and Order Supplier of various articles relating to public health, it was having business transaction with the Public Health Department, Bolangir and was being paid the price of the articles supplied as per bills by the defendant No. 3 (Appellant No. 3 herein). Although in usual course of Business, the plaintiff supplied articles worth Rs. 50,188/- to Public Health Department under bill Nos. 6, 15 and 21 in the year 1985.and worth Rs. 64,271.74 paise in the year 1983 under different bills. Those bills remained unpaid for which it approached the defendant No. 3 for several times and it was informed on 30.06.1987 that approval from higher authority was awaited. Due to such illegal detention of its bills and withholding of the payments, the Plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 of CPC to the defendants on 01.08.1998 which was received by them on 18.08.1988. Despite such notice, when no payment was made, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming recovery of Rs. 1,73,2583 paise with interest from the defendants.

(3.) The defendants Nos. 1 and 3 (Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 herein) resisted the suit by filing a joint written statement. As regards the claim of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 50,188/- under bill Nos. 6,15 and 21 of the year 1985, the defendants pleaded that part payment Rs. 17,002.40 paise had already been made and the rest amount remained unpaid as the rate of the supplied articles was exorbitant compared to the approved rate. In so far as the claim against the bills of the year 1983 is concerned, the defence plea is that since the articles under those bills were supplied without issuance of purchase order from the competent authority and were received and utilized by Jr. Engineer/SDO in violation of the Codal Procedure, Higher Departmental Authorities were moved and pending receipt of approval from higher level, payment could not be made against those bills. The contesting defendants also questioned the maintainability of the suit on some technical grounds.